DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application filed on 6/16/2025. An action on the merits follows.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election of Species A, figs. 1-13, claims 1-5 and 7-20, in the reply filed on 8/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 6 is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
lock member “configured to secure the magazine within the tool main body” in claim 1
operation member “configured to move the lock member from a lock position to an unlock position” in claim 1
biasing member “configured to bias the lock member toward the lock position” in claims 9-11 and 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure for the above limitations is:
lock member = a lock portion 43a for securing the magazine (¶0046-0047)
Operation member = a rectangular prismatic-shaped operation portion 42a, surfaces and extensions for moving the lock member to unlock position (¶0041-0045)
Biasing member = torsion spring (¶0048)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by USP# 20180001451 of Meyer et al. (henceforth Meyer).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches
A driving tool (10) comprising:
a tool main body (12, 18) configured to drive a driving member (21);
a magazine (50) removably attached to the tool main body (¶0057) and house a plurality of driving members (21);
a lock member (104, secures the magazine to the tool main body using cam profile 108) configured to secure the magazine within the tool main body so as not to be disengaged from the tool main body (¶0048);
an operation member (80, moves the lock member 104 using cam lobe 88) configured to move the lock member from a lock position to an unlock position for enabling magazine removal (¶0051); and
an extrusion portion (84) formed in the operation member, the extrusion portion being configured to push the magazine in a removal direction (away from tool body section 26 in fig. 7) with respect to the tool main body through the operation of the operation member to move the lock member to the unlock position (¶0051, see also ¶0049-0050 for additional details).
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, Meyer teaches
wherein the lock member and the operation member are separate (see figs. 5A-F for operation member and 12A-D for lock member) and movable within the tool main body.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in claim 2, Meyer teaches
a stopper (89, part of the cam surface 88 that is past the over center stable adjacent the tipping point 91) formed in the operation member, wherein the stopper is configured to prevent the lock member from moving to the unlock position (¶0053) and to allow the lock member to move to the unlock position when the operation member is actively operated (¶0053).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in claim 1, Meyer teaches
wherein an operation direction (see annotated fig. 1) of the operation member intersects both a loading direction (see annotated fig. 1) of the driving member in the magazine and a driving direction (see annotated fig. 1) of the driving member in the tool main body.
PNG
media_image1.png
934
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, as shown in claim 1, Meyer teaches
a lock engaging portion (56) formed in the magazine (¶0057) and configured to contact the extrusion portion of the operation member (¶0057, fig. 7), wherein at least one of the extrusion portion (84) and the lock engaging portion (inner surface of 56 as shown in fig. 7) includes an operation force conversion surface (cam surface 88 of extrusion portion 84, and/or the inner surface of 56 as shown in fig. 7) via which an operation direction (rotating) of the operation member is converted to the removal direction of the magazine (release direction away from tool body section 26 as shown in fig. 7 and described in ¶0049-0051).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in claim 1, Meyer teaches
a biasing member (102 which is also a torsion spring) configured to bias the lock member toward the lock position (¶0051), wherein the magazine and the biasing member is configured such that a biasing force of the biasing member (at least partial force of biasing members 102 transfers to the cam 88 of the extrusion portion through the lock member 104) is also applied in the removal direction of the magazine (¶0051, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, as shown in claim 9, Meyer teaches
a lock guide portion (56) and a lock recess (66) both formed in the magazine, wherein, the lock guide portion slidably contacts the lock member when the magazine is attached to the tool main body (lock member 104 is housed inside the lock guide portion and is slidable inside the lock guide portion 56, see figs. 9B-9C), the lock recess is configured to engage the lock member (see fig. 9C), and the lock guide portion is pushed in the removal direction of the magazine by the lock member owing to the biasing force of the biasing member when the magazine is removed from the tool main body (the lock guide portion is 56 is part of the magazine and is pushed with the magazine in the removal direction partly due to the biasing force of the biasing member 102 on 88figs. 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 11, as shown in claim 10, Meyer teaches
wherein the driving tool has a structure (26) in which the magazine is pushed in the removal direction by the operation of the operation of the operation member (¶0049-0051), and wherein the magazine is further pushed in the removal direction by the biasing force of biasing member when the lock member moves to the unlock position (¶0049-0051).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in claim 1, Meyer teaches
a nose (see annotated fig. 1) located at a front portion (see annotated fig. 1) of the tool main body extending in a driving direction (22) of the driving member, wherein the nose is attachable to the magazine (¶0048), wherein the magazine is pushed toward a side of the nose (bottom side) when the magazine is attached to the tool main body (¶0048).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in claim 1, Meyer teaches
wherein the magazine is configured to be secured in an attachment position (latched position as described in ¶0049-0051) by the lock member when the magazine moves to a side of the tool main body (bottom side of the tool main body along 20 and on pivot 28).
Regarding claim 14, as shown in claim 1, Meyer teaches
a lock housing (32 especially 24) formed within the tool main body, the lock housing having a half-split housing structure (see annotated fig. 1, ¶0028) including a left housing (see annotated fig. 1) and a right housing (see annotated fig. 1),
wherein, the lock member and the operation member are arranged within the lock housing (see fig. 8a-b), and an operation portion (83) of the operation member protrudes outside of the lock housing through a window (opening for 83 as shown in fig. 1) formed either in the left housing or the right housing.
Regarding claim 15, as shown in claim 14, Meyer teaches
a biasing member (102, which is also a torsion spring) which biases the operation member toward the window (see fig. 8a-b).
Regarding claim 17, as shown in claim 8, Meyer teaches
wherein the operation force conversion surface is
Regarding claim 18, as shown in claim 12, Meyer teaches
an attachment guide portion (28) including a guide surface (external surface of 28) that is configured to guide the magazine to the side of the nose when the magazine is attached to the tool main body (¶0048).
Regarding claim 20, as shown in claim 10, Meyer teaches
wherein the lock guide portion for guiding the lock member during attachment and removal of the magazine is shaped as .
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by an alternate interpretation of Meyer.
Regarding claim 5, Meyer (alternate interpretation) teaches
A driving tool (10) comprising:
a tool main body (12, 18, 92) configured to drive a driving member (21);
a magazine (50) removably attached to the tool main body (¶0057) and house a plurality of driving members (21);
a lock member (80) configured to secure the magazine within the tool main body so as not to be disengaged from the tool main body (¶0048, 0051);
an operation member (82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91) configured to move the lock member from a lock position to an unlock position for enabling magazine removal (¶0051, 0048); and
an extrusion portion (110) formed in the operation member, the extrusion portion being configured to push the magazine in a removal direction (away from tool body section 26 in fig. 7 through 104) with respect to the tool main body through the operation of the operation member to move the lock member to the unlock position (¶0051, see also ¶0049-0050 for additional details)
wherein the lock member is rotatably supported by the tool main body around a support shaft (92) extending in parallel with an operation direction (see annotated fig. 1, please note that support shaft is a cylinder shaped three dimensional object and therefore extends in all three directions including the operation direction as annotated in fig. 1) of the operation member.
Regarding claim 7, Meyer (alternate interpretation) teaches
A driving tool (10) comprising:
a tool main body (12, 18, 92) configured to drive a driving member (21);
a magazine (50) removably attached to the tool main body (¶0057) and house a plurality of driving members (21);
a lock member (80) configured to secure the magazine within the tool main body so as not to be disengaged from the tool main body (¶0048, 0051);
an operation member (82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91) configured to move the lock member from a lock position to an unlock position for enabling magazine removal (¶0051, 0048); and
an extrusion portion (110) formed in the operation member, the extrusion portion being configured to push the magazine in a removal direction (away from tool body section 26 in fig. 7 through 104) with respect to the tool main body through the operation of the operation member to move the lock member to the unlock position (¶0051, see also ¶0049-0050 for additional details)
wherein the lock member moves between the lock position and the unlock position by rotation of the lock member (¶0049, 0051).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “the operation force conversion surface includes end surfaces of a plurality of ribs formed in the operation member.” Meyer teaches all of the limitations of the claim except for the operation force conversion surface having end surfaces of a plurality of ribs. Meyer uses a cam profile surface to convert the force in order to release the magazine. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add/modify such a configuration without hindsight or significant changes to the cam-based release mechanism of Meyer. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “the attachment guide portion is formed integrally with an inner surface of the tool main body between the lock member and the operation member.” Meyer teaches all of the limitations of the claim except for the attachment guide portion is formed between the lock member and the operation member. Meyer teaches an attachment guide portion 28 formed near the top of the tool body away from the lock member 104 and operation member 80 and therefore not between these two elements. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add/modify such a configuration without hindsight or significant changes to the tool design of Meyer. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M. A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights